Oct 20

Today’s News 20th October 2016

  • East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    The interesting thing about working in alternative economics is that inevitably you will become the designated buzzkill. You may be presenting the facts on the ground and the reality behind the numbers, but most of what you have to report will not be pleasant. Alternative economists are doomed to be labeled “doom and gloomers.” And that’s okay…

    The truth is what it is, and sometimes it hurts people obsessed with undue positivism and bull market naivety. However, as bad as we seem to be when it comes to a negative outlook, we do not necessarily present the most ugly options on the table.

    There is an undeniable trend by some within the liberty movement to assume a Mad Max-style end game to our ever expanding house of cards. That is to say, they see the only plausible outcome being apocalyptic in nature, and nuclear holocaust fits well within this viewpoint. In many cases, the argument is sometimes presented that WWIII is in the best interests of global elites seeking a catalyst for their so-called “new world order.”

    This is not to say that I don't think WWIII is a possibility; it certainly is.  But I remain rather skeptical of the usefulness of nuclear war for the elites. Primarily because everything they openly claim they hope to accomplish can be accomplished without nukes.

    The narrative of a coming conflict between the East and the West has been boiling steadily as the U.S. election nears its end. Even the mainstream media is insinuating the potential for shots fired. Some believe the results of the election will determine the odds of war. I hold a different position. It seems to me that the rhetoric of East vs. West and nuclear exchange is being exploited as a distraction away from a different but almost equally catastrophic end game — the death of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

    First, let’s be clear; nuclear war does little to serve elitist interests. Consider the fact that globalists have been working diligently since 9/11 to install a vast electronic surveillance infrastructure in major cities around the world. This includes a pervasive video surveillance presence, biometric data collection, facial recognition, voice fingerprinting, etc. This is not only occurring in the U.S. and Europe, but in China and Russia. Vladimir Putin signed the Orwellian “Yarovaya Package” into law in June in Russia putting into motion an electronic surveillance apparatus directly on par with any measures exploited by the NSA. Perhaps ironically, even Edward Snowden, currently living in Russia under asylum, criticized the amendments.

    The point is, an elaborate and costly digital control grid is being built all around us. It makes very little sense for the elites to achieve such a level of full spectrum awareness and then flush it down the tubes in a 1.2 megaton blink of a eye. Keep in mind that a nuclear exchange also includes the targeting of military satellites — everything surveillance worthy will most likely be thoroughly toasted.

    Another issue to consider is the psychological underpinnings of elitism. Elites generally exhibit psychopathy, but it is a psychopathy driven by narcissism rather than nihilism. Narcissists tend to shy away from self destruction and the destruction of the treasures they believe they are entitled to. The elites want total centralization of power and influence, and they want the masses to accept or even demand a system in which globalism becomes sacrosanct. They want the Earth, and they want it nice and pristine for themselves. They might be willing to sacrifice certain appendages of the system, but they are not intent on vaporizing the entire prize.

    Given, psychopaths also do not like to lose. They do have a propensity for attempting to take others down with them if they are on the verge of failure. That said, I think the recent reports of the demise of globalism are greatly exaggerated.

    The narrative of coming world war revolves around certain assumptions. For example, some liberty proponents argue that the success of the Brexit referendum, the Trump campaign and the rise of sovereignty movements are an existential threat to the globalist empire. In their minds, a nuclear war triggered by the elites at this stage makes sense because globalism does appear to be “losing.”

    As I outlined in my last article Global Elites Are Getting Ready To Blame You For The Coming Financial Crash, this is simply not the case. In fact, the rise of conservative and sovereignty movements in the West sets the stage perfectly for the elites to initiate the final act of a world changing fiscal crisis. With these conservative movements in “power,” the ongoing economic collapse can then be blamed on “dangerous populists” rather than the international bankers that created the problem to begin with.

    The globalists are not on the run, they are playing the Hegelian dialectic game as they always have; problem, reaction, solution.

    And, as I have evidenced and outlined in great detail in numerous articles, the “conflict” between East and West is an engineered sham. At the top of the political and financial pyramids of every major nation, including Russia and China, the elites promote globalism and a one world currency under the control of the International Monetary Fund. Putin has openly supported IMF dominance of the global financial structure and the implementation of the SDR as a bridge to a global currency system. Chinese officials have done the same, and as of October, China is a major liquidity amplifier for the SDR. The BRICS bank, which was supposed to be a counterweight to the IMF and World Bank, actually works in collusion with the IMF and World Bank. The bottom line? There is no East versus West, at least not where the elites are concerned.

    The Russians and the Chinese are NOT on our side.  They are not even on their own side. The only legitimate opposition to the globalists is in the form of grassroots movements with very little concrete political influence. Whatever political influence we do gain tends to be quickly co-opted by deceitful measures and false leaders that ultimately serve the elites. Even the Brexit and a Trump presidency are not a real threat because they are functions of a system that the elites control in the absolute, and they would never be allowed to gain traction unless the elites needed scapegoats for a greater economic crisis.

    Our fight has so far been one of disseminating information and countering propaganda; political battles have been rather fruitless. So, again, nuclear war hardly serves the interests of elites under these favorable conditions.

    Nuclear war is also a very poor way of managing the darker goals of globalists. Their desire for substantial population reduction, for example, could be attained far more efficiently through economic collapse and mass starvation rather than the use of missiles and bombs. Food is a better weapon than smashed atoms ever will be. But if the false East/West paradigm is not setting the stage for nuclear war, then what is it being used for?

    As I have examined in the past, the division between East and West far better serves the elites in their effort to slowly but surely unseat the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency and replace it with the SDR basket — the next major step towards a single global currency system and a single global monetary authority.

    Let’s be clear, the globalists are NOT pro-dollar or pro-America. They never have been. In fact the Federal Reserve has been destroying the dollar’s purchasing power since the central bank’s inception. And, by asserting the dollar as the world reserve currency, the Fed has actually placed America in a position of severe financial weakness rather than strength. Our dependency on the dollar’s world reserve status to sustain our living standards is so complete that the loss of that status will indeed crush our country. Our system cannot function without reserve status.

    I’ll break it down even further; through the death of the dollar, the elites not only set in motion the chaos needed to justify total centralization and a world currency alternative, but in the process they also could remove the greatest threat to their control — those millions of American citizens still holding to conservative ideals of sovereignty and personal liberty.

    The East vs. West paradigm creates a perfect rational for the end of the dollar’s reserve status. Just look at the geopolitical trends in motion.

    Saudi Arabia with its vast influence over many OPEC nations is shifting away from the U.S. and building closer ties with Russia and China. The distancing of relations between the U.S. and the Saudis is even being encouraged in the U.S. through the passage of the 9/11 Saudi lawsuit bill. This will inevitably lead to the end of the dollar’s petro-status and, by extension, aid in the end of its world reserve status.

    Turkey is now gravitating towards Russia and away from NATO after the very odd and most likely staged “coup” that has given Erdogan unprecedented room for dictatorship. This new relationship may even include military support from Russia.

    Foreign central banks around the world, including Saudi Arabia and China, are currently liquidating their U.S. treasury holdings at record pace.  The program for "de-dollarization" is already well underway.

    The U.S. overall has also lost considerable goodwill among the peoples of the world (or what little goodwill it had left) in the wake of revelations that it along with allies has essentially instigated the breakdown in Syria and funded militant groups that make up the skeleton of ISIS. The continued function of our involvement in destabilizing Syria has no other benefit to the U.S. except to undermine the image of America. It does not give us increased oil dominance. It does not give us increased regional dominance. In fact, our presence in Syria only continues to harm us and bring us into dangerous proximity with Eastern interests.

    There are people who do benefit from this dynamic — the globalists.

    The U.S. is painted as the bumbling villain of our little story, greedy and blinded by visions of empire. The East is set up as the more rational party, the mediator trying to reason with Western madmen. For the globalists, the death of the dollar, which has been an ongoing project of theirs for decades, can now be completed, and they will receive NO blame whatsoever. History, if it is written by anyone other than liberty champions, will say that the East, not the central bankers, destroyed the dollar’s reserve status because it had to. History will say that we had it coming.

    In the aftermath, the elites hope to come to the rescue as global economic instability erupts with the failure of the dollar system. As they openly admit in The Economist in 1988, the dollar must be replaced by the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights; the new world order needs a great financial reset before it can take root. But, this is a much different methodology from widespread nuclear war.

    Questions arise as to November’s election and how this might affect East vs. West relations. I see no indication that it makes a difference who ends up in the White House as far as the economic result is concerned. As I have stated before, I believe Trump is the most likely candidate. Relations with the East are already in irreversible and engineered decline and even if Trump has good intentions, the globalists will pull the plug on financial support to markets not long after he enters the Oval Office. Eastern nations have been preparing for a break from the dollar for years. They work closely with the IMF. If anything, Trump’s presence will accelerate the reset.

    I think the notions of nuclear war and East vs. West conflagration endure for many reasons. An extreme distaste for Barack Obama has led many liberty proponents to assume that the man will never give up his seat of power. These people do not understand that Obama is nothing more than a Muppet, a middleman with no true influence. The elites do not need him in office to continue their program.

    Others assume that the mere chance of a Trump presidency is so dangerous to the elites that they would rather push the nuclear button than risk it. I think this is a bit naive. As stated in past articles, conservative movements are gaining control of a ship that is already sinking. They are being set up. A Trump win might help the elites. If the U.S. economy and currency collapses under Trump, conservative movements can be blamed. If they collapse under Clinton, the banking cabal will be blamed. It seems clear to me which option better serves elitists.

    A nuclear war is also perhaps subconsciously enticing to some people. The idea that the slate could be wiped clean leaving only the prepared to come out of the smoke and ash to rebuild could in some ways be considered a preferable outcome. Compare that to liberty movements taking the blame for an economic calamity while battling against an encroaching globalist machine, sacrificing for years or possibly decades on the mere chance that we can, through force of will and ingenuity, defeat a well organized empire with an established mass surveillance network and millions of duped citizens on its side.

    Hell, I’m actually an optimist when it comes to our ability to overthrow globalism, but I see no easy way out of this situation. I find it saddening that the coming fight is so frightening to people that they would rather assume a nuclear nightmare is on the way. The slower agony of economic decay and a rebellion against Big Brother may be less appetizing, but in my view, it is unavoidable.

  • Debate Post-Mortem: "Bad Hombres", "Putin Puppets", Chris Wallace Wins "Bigly"

    The debate started with 'no handshakes' once again and while there was no 'dancing' around the ring, a quiet, polite start rapidly turned ugly once the two candidates warmed up. Second Amendment supporting Trump slammed babyslaying Clinton; questions over who was the biggest "puppet"; Trump declined to support election result and threw a "such a nasty woman" comment across the stage.  While it was a close-call between Trump and Hillary, for once we suggest Chris Wallace wins tonight.

     

     

    • *TWITTER SAYS MOST DEBATE CONVERSATION ABOUT TRUMP, 59%-41%
    • *TRUMP HAD 56% SHARE OF FACEBOOK CONVERSATION, CLINTON 44%: STMT

    No Handshake….

    *  *  *

    Round 1 – SCOTUS – Clinton Win

    • Trump subdued, focused on Pro-life, second Amendment, defending constitution
    • Clinton better able to discuss details, knows constitutional court details better.

    Round 2 – IMMIGRATION – Trump Win

    • Trump pushed stronger borders, Clinton focused on "ripping families aprt"
    • Clinton claimed Trump choked on the wall.
    • Clinton pivot to blame Russia for leaks on 'open borders' thrown back in her face.
    • Argument over who is 'puppet'

    Round 3 – THE ECONOMY – Tie

    • Hillary claimed "will add no debt" – which as we know means no growth.
    • Trump slams NAFTA, more of the same Obama policies with Clinton

    Round 4 – FITNESS TO BE PRESIDENT – Tie

    • Sexual harrassment allegations denied aggressively.
    • Wikileaks documents and pay-to-play hard to argue with.
    • Why does Hillary take Saudi money when they kill gay people?
    • Trump focused on donors/special interests when Hillary brought up taxes.
    • "Rigged" discussion well argued by Trump but Hillary made him look 'whiney' and his comment "I will leave you in suspense" did not sound good.

    Round 5 – FOREIGN HOTSPOTS – Trump Win

    • Hillary claims she will defeat ISIS, Trump attacks by pointing out 'element of surprise'.
    • Hillary eloquent, Trump less hawkish.
    • Using WikiLeaks, Trump lands one of his cleanest blows of the night. "John Podesta said some horrible things about you. And he was right."

    Round 6 – NATIONAL DEBT – Trump Win (Hillary un-credible)

    • Focused on Obamacare costs to start
    • Clinton tax wealthy but no growth
    • Trump "massive tax cuts"
    • Biggest lie of the night Clinton: "I pay for everything I'm proposing. I do not add a penny to the national debt."

    Round 7 – CLOSING STATEMENT – Tie

    • *CLINTON, IN CLOSING ARGUMENT, SAYS WANTS TO BENEFIT ALL IN U.S.
    • *TRUMP SAYS CLINTON WIN WOULD BE FOUR MORE YEARS OF OBAMA PLANS

    Finally, Mexican Peso settled it…

     

    But then someone panic bid Peso to 'prove' Hillary won?

     

    But of course, just as we started the day…

    *  *  *

    1. SCOTUS

    Second Amendment

    • *CLINTON SAYS CENTRAL ELECTION ISSUE WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY TO BE
    • *SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO SIDE WITH U.S. PEOPLE, NOT COS.:CLINTON
    • *CLINTON: MY COURT NOMINEES WOULD STAND UP TO THE `POWERFUL'
    • Clinton mind-blowingly talked about dark-money in politics and its effects on the election.

    Clinton: "There's no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment."

     

     

    Clinton: "I respect the tradition of gun ownership," but we must have "reasonable regulation"

     

    Hillary Clinton said she supports the Second Amendment while touting the need for comprehensive reform to the nation's gun laws.

    "I see no conflict between saving people's lives and defending the Second Amendment," she said.

    The Democratic nominee called for comprehensive background checks and closing the gun show lope hole.

    • *TRUMP SAYS SUPREME COURT IS `WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT'
    • *TRUMP SAYS SUPREME COURT UNDER CLINTON THREATENS 2ND AMENDMENT
    • *TRUMP: MY JUSTICES WILL BE `PRO-LIFE,' CONSERVATIVE

    Trump: "Justice Ginsburg made some very, very inappropriate statements toward me"

     

     

    Abortion

    • *CLINTON: I WILL DEFEND ROE V WADE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD
    • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP USING `SCARE RHETORIC' ON ABORTION, HEALTH
    • *TRUMP: ROE V WADE COULD GET OVERTURNED IF HIS JUSTICES ADDED

     

     

    2. IMMIGRATION

    • *TRUMP REITERATES ARGUMENT FOR STRONGER BORDERS TO COUNTER DRUGS

    "There are some bad hombres here and we're going to get 'em out"

     

     

    • *CLINTON SAYS `MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS' WITH TRUMP ON SUPREME COURT
    • *CLINTON ON DEPORTATIONS: I DON'T WANT TO RIP FAMILIES APART
    • *CLINTON SPEAKS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS
    • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP `CHOKED' IN MEXICO TRIP
    • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP USED UNDOCUMENTED LABOR TO BUILD TRUMP TOWER

    Clinton attempted to pivot away from being pinned on immigration to raising Russia…

    “You are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks,” Clinton said. “What is really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the internet. This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government.”
    Clinton called on Trump to reject “Russian espionage.”

     

    Trump shot back: “That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders.”

    Clinton called Trump "a puppet"…

     

    He responded…

     

    • *CLINTON: RUSSIA ESPIONAGE ON ELECTIONS SYSTEM AT HIGHEST LEVELS

     

     

    3. THE ECONOMY

    • *CLINTON: WANT TO HAVE BIGGEST JOBS PROGRAMS SINCE WORLD WAR II
    • *CLINTON: TRUMP'S ECO PLAN COULD LEAD TO ANOTHER RECESSION
    • *TRUMP SAYS CLINTON ECONOMIC PLAN IS A `DISASTER'
    • *TRUMP SAYS U.S. ALLIES SHOULD `PAY UP' FOR DEFENSE COSTS
    • *TRUMP SAYS WOULD RENEGOTIATE NAFTA, IF HE CAN'T WOULD END IT
    • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP HAS `CROCODILE TEARS' OVER OUTSOURCING
    • *TRUMP: U.S. ECONOMY IS `STAGNANT'; SAYS LAST JOBS REPORT BAD
    • Hillary: "I wont add a penny to the debt"

     

    • *TRUMP TO CLINTON: YOU TALK BUT YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING DONE

    "She totally lied about TPP… she did call it the gold standard"…

     

    "I am going to renegotiate NAFTA"

     

     

     

    4. FITNESS TO BE PRESIDENT

    • *TRUMP ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ACCUSATIONS: IT'S ALL LIES, FICTION

    Clinton belittles women…

     

    Clinton: "While I was monitoring the Osama bin Laden raid, he was hosting The Apprentice"…

     

    When Clinton took aim at past violence at Trump's rallies, he shot back by saying "she caused the violence." He's referencing new videos from conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe, whose newly-released hidden camera footage purports to show Democratic operatives plotting chaos at a Trump rally in Chicago. O'Keefe has been accused in the past of using selectively-edited video and duping interviewees.

    • *CLINTON DESCRIBES CLINTON FOUNDATION AS WORLD-RENOWNED CHARITY
    • *CLINTON SAYS SHE'S HAPPY TO COMPARE HER FOUNDATION W/ TRUMP'S

    Clinton Foundation a criminal enterprise…

    •   *TRUMP DECLINES TO SAY IF HE'LL ACCEPT ELECTION RESULT 
    • *TRUMP ON IF HE'LL ACCEPT ELECTION RESULT: I'LL LOOK AT THE TIME 

     

     

    • *CLINTON ON TRUMP NOT SAYING HE'D ACCEPT RESULT: `HORRIFYING'

    Definitely a problem for Trump…

     

     

    5. FOREIGN HOTSPOTS

    • *CLINTON: WON'T BACK U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ AS OCCUPYING FORCE
    • *TRUMP: WE'LL TAKE MOSUL EVENTUALLY, BUT WHO'S GOING TO GET IT?
    • *TRUMP: IRAN IS TAKING OVER IRAQ, WE'VE MADE IT SO EASY FOR THEM
    • *TRUMP SAYS SYRIA'S ASSAD MUCH SMARTER THAN PEOPLE THOUGHT
    • *TRUMP: IF ASSAD FALLS IN SYRIA, YOU MAY WIND UP WITH WORSE

    Using WikiLeaks, Trump lands one of his cleanest blows of the night. "John Podesta said some horrible things about you. And he was right."

    "Whatever happened to the element of surprise?"

     

    6. NATIONAL DEBT

    Quickly focused on Obamacare costs

    • *OBAMACARE PROBABLY WILL DIE OF ITS OWN WEIGHT, TRUMP SAYS
    • *TRUMP REITERATES CALL TO REPEAL, REPLACE OBAMACARE LAW
    • *CLINTON SAYS WILL `NOT CUT BENEFITS' FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

    And with the biggest lie of the night… Clinton: "I pay for everything I'm proposing. I do not add a penny to the national debt."

  • Trump-Clinton III: The Final Sin-City Showdown – Live Feed

    Following Pence's pounding of Kaine and Trump's trouncing of Clinton in the last two debates, the final showdown promises fireworks.

    Trump's arsenal is full after two weeks of embarrassing documents from WikiLeaks and The FBI, and with the news cycle beginning to lose contact with his sexual harrassment allegations, Clinton (having gone dark for a week) will remain focused on temperament, temperament, temperament.. and the fact that Trump is not a woman.

    Interestingly, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has asked to change the setup of the pre-debate greetings on Wednesday night, The New York Times reports…

    At the previous two debates, the spouses of both candidates have met to shake hands. But this time around, former President Bill Clinton and Melania Trump will enter the debate hall in a way that avoids having the families cross paths.

     

    Two people with direct knowledge of the situation told the Times that the Clinton camp requested the change after the last debate after GOP nominee Donald Trump invited three women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault and fourth whose rapist Hillary Clinton was court-appointed to defend in 1975.

    Here are five things that The Hill points out to watch for as the candidates square off beneath the neon lights of the nation’s gambling capital:

    Will they shake hands?

    In a sign of how much disdain the candidates have for one another, Trump and Clinton declined to shake hands as they took the stage at the start of their second debate. Instead, they greeted each other with a cold “hello,” then shuffled to within about 3 feet of one another as they turned to face the audience. Trump was just minutes removed from a press conference with three women who have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault or harassment and one whose rapist Hillary Clinton was court-appointed to defend in 1975. Meanwhile, Clinton was preparing to unload on Trump for his obscene remarks about groping women. The moment was satirized on “Saturday Night Live” over the weekend, in which Alec Baldwin’s Trump and Kate McKinnon’s Clinton circled each other like jiu jitsu fighters, extending their hands for a shake but recoiling before they touched. Advisers to both nominees are surely choreographing the opening moment to ensure their candidate doesn’t come off looking bad. That opening moment could be a sign of how nasty things will get.

    Does Trump have any wild cards left?

    It’s almost a given that Trump, the Republican nominee, will unload on his Democratic rival with everything he has. Women and independents have been fleeing Trump’s campaign, helping Clinton to open up a comfortable lead in recent national polls. The map of battleground states leans strongly in Clinton’s favor, making her the heavy favorite as the clock ticks down to the finish. Trump needs a campaign-altering moment or two if he’s going to change the trajectory of the race with less than three weeks to go before Election Day. The GOP nominee’s press conference with Bill Clinton’s accusers at the last debate was an attempt to rattle Hillary Clinton. It didn’t work.

     

    Since then, Trump has thrown everything he has at Clinton, saying she would be jailed if he wins the White House and demanding they both take a drug test before the debate to see if performance-enhancing chemicals are keeping her competitive. Trump will have his pick of controversies to exploit on Wednesday night, aided by the WikiLeaks email dumps and the release of documents pertaining to the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was secretary of State. Does Trump have a new stunt or revelation up his sleeve? Will it matter?

    Does Clinton play it safe or go for the kill?

    Trump is on the ropes. Will Clinton go for the knockout blow on Wednesday night? Polls show that Clinton won the second debate, but some of her supporters were frustrated that she was not more aggressive in going after Trump, who limped in amid backlash over his lewd remarks about women and a civil war in the Republican Party over his candidacy. Clinton might view the debate as her opportunity to vanquish Trump and lay the groundwork for a governing mandate. Trump’s polling weakness has provided the Clinton campaign with an opportunity to expand the map into traditionally red states like Alaska, Georgia, Utah and Arizona. Control of the Senate is a toss-up, and if Trump’s free-fall continues, the Republican majority in the House might be in play, too. The pressure will be on for Clinton not to just win but also to deliver for down-ballot Democrats as they play for seats that seemed out of reach not long ago. That means rolling the dice with an aggressive debate, similar to the one her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), tried for in the vice presidential debate. It could mean hitting Trump where he’s weakest by bringing up his female accusers and crude remarks. But that could move against her by provoking Trump to go nuclear on the Clintons’ personal lives.

     

    The aggressiveness backfired on Kaine, showing there is risk in such a strategy. And the WikiLeaks email dump revealed what insiders have long known: Clinton’s inner circle and campaign team are cautious to a fault. They may decide the best course of action is to duck into victory formation and run out the clock with a safe debate performance that seeks to avoid riling Trump.

    Will the moderator make a difference?

    Trump and many conservatives believe the moderators were on Clinton’s side in the first two debates. Veteran NBC newsman Lester Holt opened himself up to criticism for failing to ask Clinton about her private email server or foreign donations to her family’s charitable foundation. And Trump openly warred with the moderators at the second debate, accusing CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC News’s Martha Raddatz of allowing Clinton to speak past her allotted time and lashing out at them for cutting his attacks on Clinton short. Those attacks resonated among conservatives, even if Trump ended the last debate with slightly more speaking time than Clinton. Republicans are hopeful that Fox News’s Chris Wallace — who has a solid reputation as a nonpartisan journalist — will make Clinton’s life miserable. Wallace has said he won’t fact-check the candidates in real time — a practice that has been the focal point of fierce debate within reporting circles — leaving the candidates to pick their spots and make a convincing case for their version of the truth on their own. As an anchor at the conservative news outlet, Wallace is more likely to focus on issues that other media outlets are apt to gloss over. Expect him to ask Clinton about an email exchange, revealed by WikiLeaks, in which one of her top aides disparaged Catholicism and Christianity. The newly released documents pertaining to the investigation of Clinton’s personal server will surely lead to a question about Trump’s allegations of “pay-for-play” at the State Department. And the WikiLeaks dump also revealed Clinton’s support for “open borders,” her differing views in public and in private, and a trove of other data points that Fox News has covered with relish. Of course, Wallace was no patsy in the GOP primary debates, so Trump can expect the tough treatment will flow both ways.

    What will their closing arguments be?

    This is it. The third debate is the last time the candidates will be seen by this many people. The first two debates brought between 65 million and 80 million viewers each. For Trump, it’s the best shot for a game-changing moment. For Clinton, it’s an opportunity to seal the deal. Trump has signaled that he will make this a “change” election to the end. The question voters are struggling over is whether Trump will be a responsible agent of change or a reckless danger who will burn the system to the ground. So far, a strong majority of voters view him as the latter, with vast swaths of the electorate saying he is not commander in chief material. Trump must convince voter that he can be trusted as a leader. Clinton’s closing argument is similarly complicated. She is viewed as an untrustworthy and opportunistic career politician — a considerable liability in the year of the outsider. Still, recent polls show Clinton’s base is more energized than it once was, helping her to pull away from Trump. She will be looking to maintain that momentum by giving undecided voters a reason to vote for her, not just against Trump.

    Which guests are they bringing?

    News broke Tuesday night that Trump invited Malik Obama, President Obama’s Kenyan-born half-brother, to be one of his guests for Wednesday’s showdown. Also on Trump’s list is Patricia Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith. Smith spoke at the Republican convention in Cleveland this summer, said “I blame Hillary Clinton personally” for the death of her son in the 2012 attacks in Libya. Cited by CBS, campaign CEO Steve Bannon told CNN that Smith and Malik Obama are “just an appetizer,” and that Trump will have other guests who relate to the Clintons’ past.

    One of them could be Leslie Millwee, a former Arkansas reporter who on Wednesday accused Bill Clinton of assaulting her in 1980: BuzzFeed reported that she is attending the debate. However, the Trump campaign would not confirm that Millwee was a guest of Trump’s.

    Clinton’s guest list includes Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman, a longtime Republican and former California gubernatorial candidate who endorsed Clinton earlier this year and has raised money on her behalf. Mark Cuban, the investor and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, will also be in attendance; Cuban also attended the first debate in September as a guest of Clinton’s. Also attending as Clinton’s guests are former NBA player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Clinton’s campaign announced Wednesday. Clinton’s other guests include Karla Ortiz, a woman from Nevada born to undocumented parents; Astrid Silva, a DREAMer and immigrant’s rights activist in Nevada; Ryan Moore, a man with a rare form of dwarfism known as spondyloepiphyseal Dysplasia dwarfism; Ofelia Diaz Cardenas, a woman from Mexico who crossed the border illegally in 1999 and now has a work permit; and the mother and teacher of Pvt. Damian Lopez-Rodriguez, a man who served in the U.S. Army in Iraq and was killed while awaiting U.S. citizenship.

    * * *

    Of course, for many there is a far simpler problem: it's the third debate and you still have no idea where your preferred candidate stands on a one given issue? Fear not: the following summary from Goldman breaks it all donw.

    And given that the debate is in the gambling capital of America, WaPo reports a surge in wagers such as if Donald Trump says the word “rigged” five times or more during tonight’s debate, bookies will be paying out. Oddsmakers are even taking bets on whether the presidential candidates will shake hands.

    "Unleash hell"!

    So will we see First-Debate Trump or Second-Debate Trump? Live Feed…

    *  *  *

    Finally, given that the debate is taking place in Las Vegas, the drinking game to make it pallatable to many…

    h/t DebateDrinking.com

    And keep score here…

  • Oklahoma High School Teacher Instructing Students That "To Be White Is To Be Racist, Period"

    It is no great secret that educators in our country tend to skew toward the left side of the political spectrum.  One can barely pick up a newspaper these days without having to read some outrageous story about University administrators caving to the whims of pampered millennials who suffer panic attacks as a result of exposure to the latest “micro-aggressions” or “trigger words.”  In fact, just a few weeks back, we wrote about how San Francisco State was building separate campus housing for African American students because the Black Student Union thought students of color needed a special place where they could “safely live and talk about issues affecting African-Americans” (see “San Francisco State Builds Segregated Dorms Where African-Americans Can “Safely Live And Talk”“).  Who knew that segregation was making a come back as a “progressive” policy?

    But the latest case of liberal educator lunacy, according to EAG News, comes from Norman North High School, in Oklahoma, where a teacher is apparently “teaching” students that “to be white is to be racist, period.”  Since when did pushing extreme progressive rhetoric become part of the high school curriculum?  In the good ole days this kind of insanity was reserved for the liberal elite professors at the university level but we guess those days are over.

    The lecture began with a video about the “Mistreatment of Native Americans” that prompted the student to record the lesson and ended with the teacher’s lecture about racism.

     

    In the video, a man “pulls out this globe with a bottle of white out and marks over a country or a piece of country and puts his name on it,” the student said.

     

    “So he was basically comparing what he had done to the globe to what we did to America,” she said.

     

    “To be white is to be racist, period,” the teacher said in the recording. “Am I racist? I say yea. I don’t want to be. It’s not like choose to be racist, but do I do things because of the way I was raised?”

     

    The student was naturally offended by her teacher labeling her a racist.

     

    “Half of my family is Hispanic so I just felt like, you know, him calling me a racist just because I’m white … I mean, where’s your proof in that,” the girl said. “I felt like he was encouraging people to kind of pick on people for being white.”

    To make matters even worse, a comment issued by the school superintendent implies that no disciplinary action will be taken against the outrageous comments of the teacher in question.  Which is not terribly surprising given that teacher contracts, courtesy of their unions, have become so onerous that teachers basically have to be caught on film cutting off a student’s arm before they can be fired…which is an amazingly “effective” incentive structure.

    Norman Public Schools Superintendent Joe Siano offered a statement to the news site that blamed the teacher, but did not offer any details on what, if any, disciplinary action the teacher would face.

     

    “Racism is an important topic that we discuss I our schools. While discussing a variety of philosophical perspectives on culture, race and ethics, a teacher was attempting to convey to students in an elective philosophy course a perspective that had been shared at a university lecture he had attended,” the statement read.

     

    “We regret that the discussion was poorly handled. When the district was notified of this concern it was immediately addressed. We are committed to ensuring inclusiveness in our schools.”

    So, just to clarify, is the logical conclusion of this thought process that it is technically a “hate crime” for two white people to procreate?

  • Clinton Foundation Insider Makes Stunning Admission: "Bill Is Far More Conflicted Every Single Day"

    For several days now we have been posting about the tensions between Doug Band and Chelsea Clinton (see here, here and here). The whole dispute between the two seemingly started when Chelsea raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest related to Band’s firm, Teneo, which she thought had sought favors from the State Department on behalf of clients, including MF Global.

    But, in the latest batch of WikiLeaks emails, Band escalates the situation to a whole new level by rattling off a litany of other Clinton Foundation conflicts including with Bill Clinton who he says is “far more conflicted every single day in what he does” than Teneo.

    Clinton Foundation

     

    Justin Cooper then decides to pile on by also highlighting Bill’s many conflicts.  Per the email below, Cooper expresses frustration that nothing in the proposed conflicts resolution memo addresses “how wjc’s activities interface with each other or how this structure resolves his own conflicts.”

    Clinton Foundation

     

    Meanwhile, in another email sent just a few days later, Band points out that he negotiated a speaking deal with UBS in which Bill Clinton was paid $150,000 for 6 speeches to be given between 2011 and 2012.  The more interesting part though is that Band says he “could care less if he does them or not“…of course not, because the speeches aren’t really the point now are they?

    Clinton Foundation

     

    The next exchange between Robby Mook, John Podesta and Huma Abedin shows just how much disconnect there is between campaign trail rhetoric and real life.  The emails below, highlight just how far Hillary is willing to go to cater to her large wall street donors while pretending to be fighting for “main street.”  The exchange starts when Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, highlights that Bill’s March 15, 2015 speech to Morgan Stanley may be delayed…a delay that Mook would prefer because it corresponds with Hillary’s first day of campaigning in Iowa which Mook argues is just “begging for a bad rollout.”

    But apparently Hillary was more in favor of collecting the speaking fees, as Huma shoots back that “HRC very strongly did not want him to cancel that particular speech.“

    Clinton Foundation

     

    The chain continues on as “HRC reiterates her original position” that Bill should move forward with the Morgan Stanley speech despite the potential political consequences in Iowa.  We guess that clears up any doubts on where her true loyalties lie.

    Clinton Foundation

     

    Finally, if there was any doubt left in your mind that the Clinton’s are fighting for the little guy, then it will be promptly eliminated after reading this next email exchange in which two Clinton staffers ponder why Bill refuses to have dinner with small donors.  As Teddy Geoff points out:

    “i don’t understand why the optics of hobnobbing with the rich and powerful are somehow better than the optics of sitting down with a few $5 donors. it seems like the latter is what we ought to be emphasizing, not running away from.”

    But, as pointed out below, the Clinton Foundation has “always been careful about protecting his brand.”  We guess they’re concerned about speaking fees dropping to $45,000 per hour vs. $50,000 per hour if Bill happens to be seen in public with a minimum wage worker?

    Clinton Foundation

  • Has World War 3 Already Started?

    Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

    It took 3 million soldiers, 3,000 tanks, 7,000 artillery pieces, and 2,500 aircraft…

    “Operation Barbarossa” was the code name for Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

    It was the largest military operation in human history.

    The Nazis had already conquered most of Europe. Hitler had grown overconfident from his recent military victories. Now he was hunting for big game… Stalin’s USSR.

    Throughout history, many European invaders, including Napoleon, suffered monumental defeats when they took on Russia. Despite this, Hitler thought he could succeed where they had failed.

    The idea was to inflict a total defeat on the Soviets in a matter of months, before the notoriously brutal Russian winter began.

    At first, it looked like the Germans might succeed. The Soviets were taken by surprise and were disorganized.

    But those initial victories wouldn’t be enough. Thanks to stubborn resistance and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of Soviet troops, Operation Barbarossa stalled.

    The Germans didn’t make it to Moscow before winter. The ruthless cold weather would prove to be a far more effective weapon than anything in the Soviet arsenal. Hitler’s hopes of quickly taking out the USSR perished in the brutal cold. It ultimately turned the tide of the war against Germany.

    But the Soviet victory cost millions of lives. By the end of the war, the Soviets had lost over 20 million people. Some estimate they lost many millions more. By comparison, the U.S. lost around 400,000 people.

    So, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Russians get a little prickly when a foreign military starts marching toward their borders.

    And recently… for the first time since Operation Barbarossa, German tanks are once again advancing on Russia’s border.

    You probably haven’t heard this extraordinary piece of news. That’s because the mass media has basically ignored and obscured it. They’ve been busy covering far more important things… like transgender issues and Kim Kardashian’s latest stunt.

    That’s why I want to tell you about Operation Anaconda 2016.

    It’s the largest war game in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. It’s essentially a rehearsal to secure a quick NATO victory in the event of war with Russia.

    It was launched from Warsaw, Poland, recently and involves 31,000 NATO troops.

    Operation Anaconda 2016 is one of the most important stories you’re not hearing about. It shows how perilously close the world is to another global war.

    I found out about Operation Anaconda 2016 while in Warsaw with Doug Casey earlier this year.

    (Incidentally, Poland is one of the cheapest, enjoyable countries I’ve ever been to. A 30-minute taxi ride from the middle of Warsaw to the airport is only $5. You’ll be hard-pressed to find an entrée in one of the nicest restaurants for over $15.

    Poland does not use the European currency, the euro. It has its own currency, the zloty. And the zloty’s weakness is a big reason Poland is so inexpensive today. By the way, “zloty” means “gold” in Polish. But the currency has no tie to gold. It’s just a paper currency, like the dollar and euro are.)

    Operation Anaconda 2016 is controversial even within NATO. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently said:

    Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.

    Although Steinmeier said Operation Anaconda 2016 is symbolic, he failed to mention exactly what it symbolizes.

    First, an anaconda is a giant snake. It kills its prey by squeezing it. From the Russian perspective, they’re the ones who feel squeezed. This is precisely what the U.S. has been doing by fomenting so-called colored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia (both on Russia’s periphery) and trying to absorb them into NATO.

    Second, this unprecedented “tank parade” on Russia’s borders symbolizes nothing less than World War 3.

    (Doug Casey: It’s provocative, and actually quite insane. The Western media paints the Russians as the aggressors, which—let me shock you by saying this—is the opposite of the truth. Russia is an economic minnow, producing nothing but oil and gas, and mostly unprofitably, at current prices. Its population is in permanent decline, and it’s actually a disintegrating empire with a dozen secession movements. Its only serious industrial sector is manufacturing weapons, but even the most advanced Sukhois and MiGs (like the F-22 and F-35) are artifacts of a bygone era. The Russians aren’t in a position to threaten anyone—entirely apart from the fact that conquering neighboring countries no longer makes sense. In today’s world, you’re no longer acquiring an asset to be looted, but taking on a liability.

    As for NATO, it’s outlived its usefulness by over 25 years. The huge military bureaucracy is just a hammer in search of a nail. It should be abolished before it gets everyone in a lot of trouble.)

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has reacted to Operation Anaconda 2016 with alarm. At a recent press conference, he warned Western mainstream media journalists that the world is sleepwalking into World War 3, saying:

    We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know. It’s only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. Your people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger—this is what worries me.

    How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.

    U.S. politicians like to use Putin as a piñata to show how tough they are. Hillary Clinton has declared Putin to be the new Hitler. This is the kind of thinking that fueled Operation Anaconda 2016.

    Now, we’re not referees charged with deciding which political players are good guys and which are bad guys.

    However, the portrait of Putin as a Hitler or a crazy man leading his country toward disaster—the picture you get from the mainstream media and from many politicians—is suitable only for propaganda posters.

    I don’t give two you-know-whats about what happens in Eastern Europe, except to the extent it might spark World War 3 and cause us to get vaporized in a nuclear exchange.

    Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

    *  *  *

    It’s always been true, as Bourne said, that “war is the health of the State.” But it’s especially true when economic times get tough. That’s because governments like to blame their problems on outsiders; even an imagined foreign threat tends to unify opinions around those of the leaders.

    Since economies around the world are all weakening, and political leaders are all similar in essential mindset, there’s good reason to believe the trend toward World War 3 is accelerating.

    Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can do to practically change the trajectory of this trend in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible and even profit from the situation.

    That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video. Click here to watch it now.

  • Mexico Orders Banks To "Stress Test" For A Trump Victory

    It’s official: Donald Trump is now a systemic threat.

    As part of the Mexican stress test, alongside more traditional calamities such as recession, economic crisis, and market crash, the Mexican financial authorities have ordered local banks to assess the potential impact of Donald Trump winning the U.S. presidential election, Reuters reports. Citing six bank sources, Reuters says that alongside a “normal” annual stress test, the banks were asked to conduct an additional test to examine the macroeconomic effects and volatility resulting from a potential Trump victory on Nov. 8.

    The local regulator, the Financial System Stability Board (CESF) said that as a result of the ongoing risk surrounding the U.S. election and an expected tightening in Federal Reserve monetary policy, it had examined the results of stress tests of the country’s financial system. “These exercises showed that the banking sector maintains adequate levels of capital and liquidity to face adverse scenarios,” the CESF, which includes representatives from the Finance Ministry, the Bank of Mexico and the banking regulator CNBV, said in its statement.

    However, while the rest of the stress test is largely fluff, what Mexico really wanted to know is what happens to local banks if Trump becomes president in 19 days: as a result the tests “were specifically aimed at modeling the possible impact of a Trump victory over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, the latest example of the panic the Republican candidates campaign has induced in Mexico.“

    Among other things, Trump has vowed to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement if he wins, and build a southern border wall that Mexico would pay for. Fears that Trump could take the White House have also weighed on the peso which is down nearly 8 percent so far this year.  Trump was in Mexico City briefly in August for a highly contentious visit that led to widespread criticism of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and helped precipitate the resignation of then finance minister Luis Videgaray, who was seen as the architect of the meeting.

    Still, Mexico is far less nervous than it was just a month ago: one of the banking sources told Reuters that Trump’s recent collapse in the polls following a string of groping accusations had helped calm concerns that he might win. Of course, the reason why S&P futures traded limit down on the night of Brexit is because just like now, the outcome was taken for granted by all involved, with virtually all polls guaranteeing the preferable outcome.

    It remains to be seen if Trump can repeat the Brexit shock.

  • The Missing "Oh Shit" Link Revealed: Hillary Admits "I Asked That They Be Deleted"

    Back in September we wrote about the circumstances leading up to the “Oh Shit” moment when Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks deleted Hillary’s 30,000 “personal emails” (the full notes is here:  “The “Oh Shit” Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena“).  Within the original FBI interview notes, Hillary “stated she never deleted, nor did she instruct anyone to delete, her e-mails to avoid complying with FOIA, State, or FBI requests for information.”  Moreover, just last week, in sworn testimony provided to Judicial Watch, Hillary also denied asking for the emails to be deleted.  That said, a new email discovered in the latest WikiLeaks dump seems to offer a direct contradiction to what Hillary previously told both the FBI and Judicial Watch.

    So which version is true?

    –  FBI Notes:  “Clinton stated she was also unaware of the March 2015 e-mail deletions by PRN.”

    –  Judicial Watch Testimony:   “She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.”

    –  Private Talking Points (WikiLeaks):  “As I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones.  I asked that they be deleted.”

     

    Before getting into the details, here is the background from the FBI notes on how Hillary’s personal emails came to be deleted. 

    Shortly after providing the data dump to the State Department, in “December 2014 or January 2015,” both Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills requested that all emails be removed from their computers using “a program called BleachBit to delete the e-mail-related files so they could not be recovered.” 

    For her part, “Clinton stated she never deleted, nor did she instruct anyone to delete, her e-mails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information” though the following notes suggest she did agree to change her email retention policy to 60 days.

    Clinton 1

     

    A few months later, on March 4, 2015, Hillary received a subpoena from the House for all of her emails on all of her personal servers.

    Hillary FBI BleachBit

     

    Which brings us to the “Oh Shit” moment which occurred on March 25, 2015.  On that fateful day, Paul Combetta realized that he had forgotten to change Hillary’s email retention policy to 60 days.  But, the existence of the Congressional subpoena now meant that those emails needed to be preserved.  Despite acknowledging the subpoena, after a call with Hillary’s attorney, David Kendall, and Cheryl Mills, Combetta proceeded to delete the emails anyway.

    Ironically, both Mills and Clinton subsequently denied any knowledge that the “personal emails” were deleted.

    “Mills stated she was unaware that [Redacted] had conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015.  Clinton stated she was also unaware of the March 2015 e-mail deletions by PRN.”

    Clinton

     

    Which leads us to our final question…if, as reported to the FBI, Hillary was unaware that her “personal emails” were deleted in March 2015 then why, in internal talking points that never surfaced publicly before today, did Clinton admit that “As I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones.  I asked that they be deleted.”

    Apparently, Hillary has both a public and private position on exactly what happened in March 2015…we’ll let you decide which is more reflective of the truth.

    Clinton

     

    Finally, we’ll leave you with one more Hillary variation of an “answer” to the exact same question.  The following response was offered to Judicial Watch as part of a FOIA lawsuit and the answer was specifically provided under oath.

    Question:  After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed?  If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

     

    Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 23 as outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that it was her expectation that all of her work-related and potentially work-related e-mail then in her custody would be provided to the State Department in response to its request.  Secretary Clinton believes that her attorneys retained copies of the e-mails provided to the State Department in December 2014, but she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.  Secretary Clinton decided that, once her work-related and potentially work-related e-mails were provided to the State Department, she had no reason to keep her personal e-mails, which did not relate to official State Department business.  She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.

     

    So, we ask again, which version is true?

    –  FBI Notes:  “Clinton stated she was also unaware of the March 2015 e-mail deletions by PRN.”

    –  Judicial Watch Testimony:   “She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.”

    –  Private Talking Points (WikiLeaks):  “As I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones.  I asked that they be deleted.”

     

    Finally, we leave you with this:

  • ECB Preview: What Wall Street Thinks Mario Draghi Will Say Tomorrow

    In many ways, the task facing the ECB’s Mario Draghi is the most daunting of all central bankers. On one hand, the ECB head has to keep financial conditions as loose as possible to stimulate the lethargic credit pathways in Europe, on the other European banks and insurance companies have been the most severely impacted by the ECB’s Negative interest rate policy. Which is why some have suggested that pursuing a BOJ-like policy of “curve manipulation”, where the 10Y is pegged at a certain level and allowing the curve to steepen while pushing short rates even lower may be the best approach for the central bank. However, due to the peculiarities of the joint European bond market, where political considerations make such an experiment particularly complicated complex, it is unlikely that the central bank will be able to mimic the BOJ’s exercise in progress.

    Making matters worse for the ECB is the intertwined nature between depressed European bank equity prices and local lending. As Deutsche Bank suggestively cautioned earlier, “our view has been that, in what is predominantly a bank dominated market, lending standards (and then actual lending) could soon be hurt by the depressed nature of European bank equity prices as bank equity prices have led lending by 12 months since the Euro commenced (updated graph included in the piece). The tightening seen yesterday is still way below GFC levels but given recent equity trends it is a potential worry in the quarters ahead. Perhaps this is another sign to central banks that current monetary policy could hurt lending in so far as it hurts bank equity prices. It is not clear that the ECB has any inclination to change direction but it feels increasingly unlikely that they can ease further without causing collateral damage.”

    As DB concludes, “the path of monetary policy is becoming more and more complicated.”

    Still, Draghi has to say something, and as Bloomberg notes, the ECB meeting on Thursday may boil down to Draghi’s communication about asset purchases, with market watchers focusing on just one key aspect: any hint of QE tapering would spur a large scale sell-off in the rates market, according to most of the sellside strategists.

    Here is what the prevailing consensus of what Draghi may and should say tomorrow looks like:

    • Rates markets are pricing a dovish outcome
    • Draghi will need to put the tapering discussion back in the box to avoid an adverse market reaction, according to BofAML
    • Any euro move triggered by ECB could be short-lived as the outlook for the currency remains linked to the market pricing of a Fed rate increase this year
    • ECB is expected to stay on hold this week for many reasons, including risk events such as U.S. elections and the constitutional referendum in Italy; staff economic forecasts will be released only in December
    • Outlook for any technical changes to QE such as issue limit and deposit rate floor for purchases as well as any indication of by how long the buying program would be extended, if at all, will be watched

    Below is the full breakdown by bank of what Wall Street’s strategists believe will happen tomorrow:

    BofAML (Gilles Moec, Athanasios Vamvakidis, Ralf Preusser)

    • Expects Draghi to sound dovish and reject talk of early tapering; central scenario sees ECB announcing in December that it will prolong QE until September 2017 at the current EU80b pace
    • EUR may weaken; still, the impact is unlikely to be sustained as a QE extension expected; sees EUR/USD below 1.1000 if Fed hikes rates and the ECB extends QE in Dec.
    • Draghi will need to put the tapering discussion back in the box to avoid an adverse market reaction in rates
    • The QE discussion seems to have moved on from tapering to technicalities; tweaking QE parameters reduces the risk of further bull flattening in core rates

    RBS (Giles Gale, Ross Walker, Clement Mary-Dauphin)

    • Importance of meeting has increased as it will be a difficult communication exercise for the governing council while markets are betting on a volatile outcome
    • A communication mistake could spur a large sell-off in EUR rates, peripheral spreads widening and curves steepening; still, expect the magnitude of the move to be somewhat smaller than during the “bund tantrum”; sees ~50-70bps upside in 30y rates
    • If ECB sends a strong signal that QE is going to be extended, announces issue and issuer limit relaxations, reiterates its accommodative stance and addresses taper concerns, investors should expect lower rates, bull flattening and tighter peripheral spreads
    • Base-case scenario is for a nine-month extension with unchanged EU80b monthly pace and a relaxation of issue- issuer limits at December meeting

    UBS (Reinhard Cluse, Nishay Patel)

    • Base-case scenario remains that ECB will announce a six- month extension of QE in December, with ongoing purchases of EU80b per month
    • Still, given the resilience in growth, the pick-up in inflation and concerns about the negative side effects of low interest rates and bond yields, believe a tapering decision in December shouldn’t be dismissed easily
    • Rates markets seem to be pricing in a fairly dovish outlook for ECB monetary policy and euro zone fundamentals, setting a high bar for the ECB to deliver a more dovish outcome than what is already priced in
    • If expectation regarding technical changes to the ECB’s QE program materializes (above all, higher issue limits for non-CAC bonds and scrapping the deposit rate floor in December), euro zone yield curve should steepen materially
    • Foresees German 10-year yields rising further and reaching 0.15% by year-end and 0.50% by end-2017

    GOLDMAN SACHS (Dirk Schumacher)

    • Draghi will stress that the timeline for QE will be decided based on the inflation outlook, and that technical constraints will not stand in the way of an extension
    • Continue to expect the ECB to extend the QE at December meeting beyond March 2017 — at least initially– at the current volume of EU80b
    • While ECB may have arguments for why it may consider tapering the purchases, a large majority on the Governing Council probably still view the net effect of the ECB’s policy measure on growth and inflation as positive
    • Says there is probably a broad agreement among the Governing Council that there would be no sudden stop, but rather a gradual decline in the monthly volumes purchases, once it decides to end the QE

    CITIGROUP (Harvinder Sian, Guillaume Menuet)

    • This week’s meeting has some asymmetric bear steepening risk as there may be some news on the technical PSPP shifts, which could remove long-end negative convexity support
    • Draghi may not be hawkish but he will probably also not be as dovish as the consensus expects when asked about taper risks; says it’s hard to see a bullish inference
    • Baseline scenario for this month is ECB announcing an increase in the issue/issuer limit from 33% to 50% and a relaxation of the rule that prohibits purchases of bonds with a yield below the deposit facility rate; this should be enough to address any scarcity concerns well beyond March: MORE

    JPMORGAN (Greg Fuzesi, Mika Inkinen,Paul Meggyesi)

    • Doesn’t expect changes this week; decisions about extending QE and changing modalities are linked and will likely be taken together in December
    • Says ECB is almost 100% certain to extend QE beyond March, and sees only a 20% risk of a reduction in the pace to EU60b/month; as compromise with the hawks, expects the extension to be only for six months, rather than nine
    • Recommends paring back on bearish duration exposure; close shorts in 15Y Germany, and take profit on 3s/5s steepeners
    • Front-end swap spreads already price in ECB buying below the depo floor; fade the richness in Schatz swap spreads via Schatz/Bund OIS swap spread curve steepener
    • Take profits on short EUR/JPY straddles; ECB meeting could prove reasonably inconclusive about the ECB’s policy intentions and so partially reverse the recent downward pressure on EUR/USD

    BARCLAYS (Cagdas Aksu, Huw Worthington)

    • Decision on QE extension or parameter changes will likely be on hold until December
    • If there are any announcements, they are more likely to be on technical parameter changes than the extension of the program
    • Base case is for QE to be extended at the December meeting by six-nine months beyond March 2017, seeing a reduction in size also possible at the March meeting next year
    • Stick with a portfolio of trades that have a term and credit premium increase bias in EGB peripheral curves and spreads; in core, continue to favor being long belly ASWs outright, as well as versus longer-end ASWs
    • Trades include long 10s/30s Ireland steepener, short 30y BTPs vs Germany, long 7y France ASW and short 5s/15s Finnish ASW box

    NOMURA (analysts including Jordan Rochester)

    • Stronger indications of a QE extension would keep EUR/USD on its current depreciation path, while steepening curves with stable risk sentiment would also sustain the momentum of USD/JPY appreciation
    • If ECB communication further increases market concerns over near-term tapering, curves may steepen and risk sentiment deteriorate; this would challenge the recent trend of EUR/USD depreciation and USD/JPY appreciation, though not Nomura’s main scenario

    DEUTSCHE BANK (Francis Yared):

    • ECB likely to wait until December before announcing the technical changes to QE, but Draghi may give some indications about the range of possible outcome
    • Maintain the same strategic bias toward a bear steepening of the curve; make tactical adjustments to portfolio to reflect current valuations and a slightly less favourable macro backdrop
    • In Europe, exit the Bobl-Buxl ASW spread; among other trades, maintain the 10s30s steepener which somewhat lags in the repricing of QE expectations

    UNICREDIT (Marco Valli, Vasileios Gkionakis)

    • Sees upside risks for EUR as its underperformance suggests that some market participants may be gearing up for some sort of announcement at ECB meeting
    • It would be premature for the ECB to do so now, without updated economic projections
    • Central scenario remains that the ECB will announce a six-nine-month extension of QE beyond March 2017 in December

    Source: Bloomberg

Digest powered by RSS Digest